email_templates_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that setting isDefault to true will unset the current default template in the same category—a critical side effect. It also clarifies the at-least-one-field requirement. This is strong for a system with zero annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with three concise sentences covering purpose, constraints, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for not structuring param semantics more explicitly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a non-destructive update tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational concerns: the update target, the optionality constraint, and the default-category side effect. It's reasonably complete given its relative simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds the 'at least one must be provided' constraint and the isDefault side-effect semantics, which go slightly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing email template with a specific verb+resource combination. It's distinguishable from siblings like email_templates_create and email_templates_delete due to the 'existing' modifier and 'update' verb. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings within the description itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance: it's for updating existing templates, and it explicitly notes that all fields are optional but at least one must be provided, which is important usage context. It also explains the isDefault behavior. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.